Ezra Katz

Hello Ezra, I saw your new Wikibooks logos, and I like them a lot. Do you think you could make another one, with the same kind of shading effects, using predominantly blue and white? I think that's a really great color combo for our logo (even though i'm pretty sure the WMF wants us to shy away from blue). I would like to see it anyway, because I think it would look nice. --Whiteknight 00:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Your idea's awesome. You might event want to propose it as a new logo. The only thing is that (and this has been said before) the slogan is ironic since correct English would actually be "Think freely. Learn freely." ~thesublime514 • talk

3-D?

Can you try to make a 3-D version of your logo, i.e. show the face of the pages a bit? It's beautiful, but it looks distractingly like a sexy pair of legs. (Or is it just me?)

Deletion of all the D logos

How the hell have you dared to speedily delete all the D 6 and 7 logos without any discussion as a presumible "derivative work" from that library logo??? I don't know whether the first version was copied from it, but the ones I did (from 7.1 to 7.5, with its variations) were made using INKSCAPE and were significantly different from the first one.

I suppose this is an awful way to get your own logo winner of the competition. But I'm going to request the undeletion of all my logos. You are terribly partial. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 17:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact which makes me more angry is that you (or somebody else) have had my complete proposal 7.5 deleted, but not logos' series 6 and 7: do you really think they are different from the original?! As you can see viewing them in Inkscape, they are definitely rasterizations of version 1 (with all the mistakes it provokes) — while my 7.5 and derivatives were ORIGINALLY done by myself. If one changes from the hypothetical logo the shapes and the colours, as well as the label, HOW the hell can you think it is still a "derivation" of the first?? I'll repeat: I did 7.5 logo by myself, looking – surely – at the previous version, but not copying them. So, as you have asked an admin not to delete your logo (8.2) as You made it by yourself, I demand the same treatment, otherwise I'll with the same right as yours demand your logo's deletion, for the same reason as mine. I think they are both nice enough to be able to become the next Wikibooks logo, and I do not approve your attempt to put my logo off in order to win the competition. So, please act in order to repair your mistake: restore my 7.5 series. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already requested that the logos from series 6 and 7 be deleted, they were uploaded to the commons so they may take a while to complete it. I requested mine to be undeleted because it was my original work and that it was significantly different from the library logo. If I were in your situation, where my work was nearly identical in shape to another copyrighted work, I would have requested the logos be removed myself. Personally, although I don't think my logos infringe on copyright, I don't think ANY of the D variations should be used as they are too similar to existing works. I am truly sorry for this confusion, feel free to take any action you think is appropriate. I did not intend to use this deletion process as a way to promote my own logos. --Ezra Katz 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Although you didn't intend to promote your logo this way, you must agree that my 7.5 version has almost nothing to do with the Library logo. Therefore I have re-uploaded it. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 19:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

re:D Logos

Yeah, i saw the mess and I wrote up a blog entry about it. I'm so disappointed because D was my favorite group of logos. It's almost unbelievable that somebody would even suggest a blatant copyvio for us to use, and it's sad that we didn't detect it until this late in the process. It makes me wonder whether any of the other logos are violations as well.

If the entire family of Logo D is a violation, we are in a bad position because it was one of the front runners. Without it, a lot of votes basically disappear. If, however, there are a few variants in there that are salvageable, it's not a problem. If they all need to get deleted, I think that really is going to reflect negatively on this whole process, and we might be forced to discontinue. I really don't know what to do, i'm very upset by all this. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 20:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: D logo "copyright fiasco"

I'm sure that whomever decided it was time to narrow the choices down to just 10 and whittle from there is disappointed that we now have 17 active logo proposals again (give or take, but that's the number where I currently see consensus). On the other hand, I think that the tweaking and fiddling has really helped to improve most of the logos. In fact, I think it's fair to say that all of the logos that have been modified from the initial round have been improved in the process, not just changed. Prop D has, obviously, undergone the most dramatic change of all. After all, we don't want to deal with copyvio in our logo. Thank you for your compliments. I am happy to have helped. --Willscrlt (Talk) 23:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization of Wikibooks logo proposal I pages

Hi. I know that proposal I is your baby, and I hope that my actions won't upset you. As you probably noticed, I have been systematically working my way through all of the proposal pages for both Wikibooks and Wikijunior, trying to bring some order to the chaos that some of them had devoloved into. Since your proposal's page was so complete and not at all chaotic, I wasn't going to mess with it. But, after getting all the rest of the proposals into a standard format, it seemed really odd to have one that was formatted so differently from the others. So, I went ahead and reformatted your proposal to match the others. I kept all the details, but I moved them to a sub-page. I also mentioned those details and linked to that page in at least three different pages so that people will hopefully actually go and visit it. If this is a completely unacceptable change in your opinion, feel free to move the proposal back onto the main page. I would recommend adding it back in between the current discussion and the gallery appendix so that the overall structure of the proposal pages remain consistent. Again, I hope that you are not upset by the changes. I do want to see your proposal in the final candidates, and I don't think the changes will hurt its changes. It might even help, since people will be able to find the discussions more easily. --Willscrlt (Talk) 10:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. I'm glad you're not upset. Being bold is usually a good thing, but it can sometimes cause conflicts, and I didn't want that. I absolutely agree that putting together a full proposal presentation package as you did is an important thing. I think that each of the proposals should have a /Details sub-page that has most, if not all, of the elements that yours does. This was actually a requirement of the original selection process, and I'm sure you are aware. People like me who came into this whole thing fairly recently do not necessarily know that, just like I didn't know that avoiding the Wikimedia RGB colors was important (and here I was telling people that the logos should be more like them). I know some people are sick to death for waiting for this to end, but, you're right. We will have much better logos as a result. And it's not like we are suffering by waiting. Sure, we have a boring logo up there, but at least we have one. Thanks for your efforts, too. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk) 13:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)